I got one big problem with Al Gore

[BluegrassDem]

And his name is Joe Lieberman. Everytime I'm about to barf when Lieberman is on TV, I can't help but to turn around and get made at Gore for elevating this fool to the national stage. Now don't get me wrong, I love Gore and would love for him to be the '08 nominee, but picking Lieberman has done more harm to our party than any other VP pick in history.

Lieberman should be no more than a little known senator from a New England state. If he were never VP pick in 2000, he wouldn't be commanding the attention he's getting now.

[evlbstrd]

1. I don't entirely fault Gore.

That choice had to be driven by the Democratic Party to a large extent.
By the way, at that time, we weren't at war in Iraq.

[BluegrassDem]

2. Lieberman was not trustworthy then

I know many on the left didn't care for his choice, but bit their lip for party unity. I remember Maxine Waters was very upset about Gore picking Lieberman. Obviously, she and others were ahead of the curve.

The sad part is that Gore could've picked Jeanne Shaheen of N.H. and probably would've carried the state and won the presidency, without Florida.

[evlbstrd]

8. I hear you.

But so much is hindsight. (Gore did win, but for the Supreme Court.)
And Gore is finally his own person now.

[Mabus]

3. Don't forget that Gore endorsed Dean

or the anti-Lieberman.

And frankly, I think Lieberman lost his mind after 9/11.

[progdonkey]

4. Lieberman would still be a major player...

It's not Gore who put Lieberman on the national stage; Lieberman did that all by himself by being a master at brown-nosing every Bush administration position no matter how extreme/batshit insane it was. Certainly, Lieberman got some extra "umph" by being able to be introduced as a "former Democratic VP candidate" to give his comments extra weight on shows like Hannity, etc., but the (D) was already enough to give him the weight of "bipartisanship" when he'd badmouth the Dems.

It's just like with Zell Miller, who would never have been the keynote speaker for the Republican Convention if he'd been a member of the Republican party. Even though he'd voted with them something like 98% of the time, he never changed parties because his being officially a Dem made him worth something to the Republicans as a voice of "bipartisanship." If he had been honest and changed parties, he would've just been another extreme Republican and nothing special at all.

Same goes for Lieberman. Everything he says puts him in the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, but as long as he's ostensibly a Dem (he's only an "independent" because he didn't want to lose "his" seat; he'd much rather still have that "D" for political use), he serves a purpose for the GOP by making the batshit insane policies look "moderate." Were he to fully switch to the Republican Party, he--like Miller--would just be another extreme RW Republican and you'd never see him anywhere, even on Faux.

[NYCGirl]

30. And don't forget it was Zell Miller who gave the keynote speech at the 1992

Democratic convention — he's changed.

[illinoisprogressive]

5. from what I've heard, he's changed over a course of time

from a liberal dem to a gop traitor.
He is not to be trusted now and I think the dems don't. But, I do wonder if he is just showing his real self now and if he did anything to harm Gore's campaign in 2000.

[silverlib]

6. I said at the time that he was picked as VP candidate

because he could win Florida, which was thought to be essential for the Dems to win - and he probably did.

[dansolo]

86. I'd argue that he lost Florida for Gore

Honestly, who would Lieberman have gotten that wouldn't have voted for Gore anyway? OTOH, I suspect that there were plenty of people who voted against them because of Lieberman. I would be willing to bet that Lieberman lost more votes than he gained.

[gulliver]

7. But he made up for it by endorsing Dean.

</sarcasm>

Gore is a puzzle to me. It's like there are two of him. One in An Inconvenient Truth and nailing Bush in speeches. The other doing things like choosing Lieberman as his running mate and endorsing Dean (to Dean's destruction).

[LibDemAlways]

9. Lieberman probably lost as many votes for

Gore as he gained. He's so damn whiny and sanctimonious. When Gore announced him I thought WTF? He's not Presidential material at all.

[silverojo]

18. Same here.

I couldn't believe when Lieberman ended up on the ticket. :puke:

[against all enemies]

28. My guess is that Lieberman was supposed to delivery FLA.

I can't stand that prick Lieberman. The way he made Cheney look like a good guy during the debates made me sick. Lieberman's job was to attack Cheney as a right wing nut but Lieberman chose to be "Presidential". As usual it was all about Joe.

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. He probably had very little to do with picking joe.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Don't say that

Picking Lieberman doesn't disqualify Gore for me. I beleive Gore's learned some hard lessons since then. But believing for an instant that someone who aspires to be President of the United States would stand to the side and let others pick his Vice President for him would say something about Gore's leadership capacity that I simply don't believe is true, but would find very disturbing if it were. The buck stops at the top. If Gore wasn't ready for that kind of accountability and responisbility for his first major decision as the Democrat's top guy, then he wouldn't have been when he stepped into the Oval Office.

[madmunchie]

40. Gore would have been ready, no matter what.

I don't think being that hard on him is very helpful to what may have been going on back then, which none of us knows for sure since we were not there. Gore choosing Libermann or the DNC choosing Liebermann for Gore doesn't really make any difference right now since the conditions are much different today than they were in 2000.

The VP choice is a group effort many times and not personally hand picked by the candidate for President. Just as I would bet that the DNC was behind Edwards getting the nod for VP with Kerry, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Kerry didn't choose Edwards, but was convinced that Edwards would be the best running mate.

Back then the biggest focus of the country was Clinton's sex life. I think that we have all GROWN up a bit since then. I don't believe any of us realized just how bad it was going to be under Bush.

Gore is a great guy and would have been a great President and he would be a great President today.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. I agree with you about Gore

And I am not being overly harsh about the Lieberman pick, as I noted. It seems I disagree about the role of the Presidential candidate in picking the VP however. I don't care that much what process is used, and who comes up with a recommended choice. If the candidate accepts a big role for the DNC in that, fine. But the VP is one heart beat away from the Presidency, and almost immediately jumps to the front of the line as the probable next Party Presidential pick the next time the office is open. It matters. It matters a lot. And I would not appreciate anyone who wants to be President of the United States taking a hands off attitude toward who his running mate is going to be. I believe that Gore could have said no, he did not want Lieberman to be his running mate, if the DNC was pushing Lieberman on him. If I did not believe that then I could not support Gore now, and I can support Gore now. I could not accept for a future President someone who simply took whoever the party told him he needed to run with as his running mate, without personally agreeing with that choice. I believe that Gore agreed that Lieberman was a good choice for his running mate, if it wasn't his idea to begin with.

[madmunchie]

44. I think that you need to look back at the time and realize that Lieberman

wasn't really even much heard of. I believe that Lieberman has changed a great deal, or maybe just shown his colors.

Looking right now at Gore and at Liberman, well alls that I can say is that they are no longer in the same universe. I believe that Bush's agenda really impacted some people in an extraordinary way, McCain and Libermann for starters. I also believe that Gore has been affected as well- although thankfully not in the same was as McCain and Liberman.

Like I said before the times were different back then Clinton's sex life was the biggest news of the day and things were really going well. Lieberman was a little known liberal Jewish Conneticut Senator. Since then EVERYTHING has changed. I can excuse Gore for Lieberman so much easier than I can excuse any of the current Senators (and one past) for their vote giving Bush the right to attack Iraq. To me, THAT is a much larger hurdle to get over. That is why my top choices don't include anybody that made that horrible error.

By the way, I absolutely am hoping that Gore, Clark, Kucinich,Feingold (even though he said that he would not run) and Obamma run and come out on top.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. I pretty much agree with you on all of this. Yep. n/t

[sandnsea]

11. May as well blame Bill Clinton

The Lieberman choice was 100% based on his 'family values' to contrast against the blow job. No blow job, no joe blow. If we're going to blame someone.

[snowbear]

12. I love Al Gore, and I love our Gore DU'ers... but as our '08 presidential candidate...

..I don't know what's wrong with me.. ...I just don't feel enthusiasm for a Gore run for some reason...

I respect him to no end and I KNOW he would do an incredible job. But I just don't get that "feeling" this time around and I don't know why!

Maybe I need to see the "DU Doctor" and see if my head's on straight?

Wassamattame????

[Kirassan]

19. Gore is not on my pick list either.

[Jai4WKC08]

38. He'll go on my list if he decides to run..

and IF Clark doesn't.

For that matter, from what I see now, and absent Clark, Gore might go to the top of the list. I sure don't know of anyone else I like better. But I don't think Gore can win. Yeah, I know, he won in 2000. But that was then. It takes more now. And I don't see that he's got anything more to give.

[frogcycle]

47. Well, forget the "feeling"

You said it yourself. He would do an incredible job.

With the mess that has been created of our foreign relations, the wars, FEMA, corruption, no child left behind, abrogation of civil rights, and on and on - Al Gore is one of the very few people on the planet - actually I guess the only one - that I can imagine having the intelligence, focus, work ethic, collaborative spirit... well, you get my drift!

There might be more glamorous candidates that give you "that feeling" (whatever it is :) ) but we are pretty much in a state of emergency as a country, and we need Big Al!

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. The reason why I am supporting Wes Clark...

...is pretty much the same reason why you support Al Gore. And I do have "the feeling" about Wes Clark so I don't even have to fake that. I think Clark would do an incredible job as President. But I like Al Gore a lot, and I know he can make a great President also. Gore is second on my list right now. Of course we don't know for sure if either man will definately run, I'm hoping that at least one of them will!

[frogcycle]

57. Wes is second on my list!

Actally, I'd take them in any order. But it makes more sense to be for Gore to have top spot, since he already did the other.

I am crazy about Wes, and think in particular he'd sort out the foreign relations mess.

[shance]

13. We'll perhaps never know the real reason why Gore was advised to accept Lieberman.

However, we can assume now as to why that choice was made, or wasnt made by Gore.

What we can conclude is that they are essentially oil and water in their overall code of morals.

[liberalpragmatist]

15. Lieberman Wasn't Forced on Gore

I like Al Gore. A lot. But it's stupid that so many people insist that Lieberman was hoisted onto Al's campaign. There is nothing to back up the assertion.

An awful lot of people forget that Al Gore is still a centrist in many respects. As far as I know, for example, he is still ardently pro-free trade and pro-NAFTA. Gore was a FOUNDER of the DLC and criticized his primary opponents in 1988 from the RIGHT. People forget that his Senate record was essentially center-right. He championed the tobacco lobby, had only a so/so record on choice, defended gun-owners (as a senator), was a leading defense hawk, and did an awful lot of moralizing himself about indecency in music and movies.

I'm not attacking Gore. He was the elected senator from Tennessee in the 1980s. And from his upbringing and background, I think he believes a lot of that too.

Simply put, Gore and Lieberman were ideologically pretty closely-aligned in the past. Gore and Lieberman were both genuinely religious, both genuinely concerned about "cultural issues," both had reputations for bipartisanship and hawkishness, and both were associated with the DLC. The choice of Joe Lieberman was Gore's. He picked him over John Kerry and John Edwards (the other final contenders) because he was personally comfortable with him at the time and because he believed Lieberman accentuated Gore's strengths and differentiated him from Clinton.

Since 2000, Lieberman has drifted to the right. His voting record is still relatively party-line (although we'll see how this holds up during this congressional term) but he's taken to reserving all his ire for his own party and for "partisanship". Gore, rightly, sees these guys (BushCo) as beyond the pale and clearly rejects Joe's cozy approach.

My point is that though Gore and Lieberman are, in their political approaches, wildly different now, that was not always the case. It's silly to blame shadowy forces forcing Gore to pick Lieberman.

[JI7]

17. John Kerry was not a final contender

it was thought he was, but later it was reported that Kerry was pretty much dropped because of his relationship with women (even though they were from his single days) and Lehane who ran Gore's vp search thing also spread the Kerry intern stuff so they wanted to avoid dealing with that. this was when the big thing was Clinton's adultery and Bush was running on morals and other non issues.

one of the reasons he picked Lieberman was because he was one of the first to condemn Clinton.

it's funny ohw THAT was such a big issue considering what is going on now.

[cascadiance]

21. I heard that the DLC was the one that pointed Al to Lieberman...

I believe it was the Carville crew, etc. that were saying that Lieberman on the ticket would help Gore be "not Clinton", since Lieberman was vocal in his criticism of Clinton at the time. Of course Clintons were also DLC then too, but this was all part of just strategizing getting their people in power and what they perceived to be the public sentiment to help them do that. I do believe that Al was hurt by this campaign strategy of "being not Clinton" instead of being himself. It hurt him with people like me when he went out of his way to attack congresswoman Loretta Sanchez for hosting a fundraiser in the Playboy Mansion, instead of just ignoring it as a part of that strategy.

I was reading that Gore then, frustrated with his campaign numbers against Bush started himself to shift mid campaign to a more grass roots strategy that helped him some at the end. However, I don't think that was enough then to really get all of the votes away from Nader, etc. that he needed then. He almost didn't get mine. But I think that was the start of his split from the DLC then. As someone pointed out earlier, I think that split was made visible when he endorsed Dean instead of Lieberman early on in the campaign and Lieberman's vocal complaints about that.

Yes, Al Gore was a centrist on many things, including being one of the few Senators voting for the original Persian Gulf War under Bush 1. But I think he was truly "centrist" then, and probably bought into the idea of the DLC being a more "centrist" oriented influence of the Democrats back when it was started up, instead of the corporatist entity it has morphed into over the years. I do believe that much like many of us here, he's rejected that corporatist strategy that they have now.

I've told many people that I don't mind supporting people who are centrist in their views, as long as they have integrity and are out to represent people and be honest with their viewpoints, rather than talking out of two sides of their mouth and taking influence peddling money on the side from corporations. I don't care how liberal or conservative they are, I don't want people that buy into that institutionalized bribery. That's why I still also like people like Paul Hackett, even though he's centrist on many issues too. He seems to be more the real deal in terms of representing himself and people who support him, not corporations.

I think that Gore's experience with the DLC (working with them before) and seeing how that turned into a negative for him in 2000 is actually an added attribute in looking at him as a candidate. He knows first hand the tactics of these people and how damaging they can be to candidates that want to have integrity and to the people they are supposed to represent. Kind of like how David Brock, founder of Media Matters, knows first hand how the Rethuglican spin machine works too and now works against it as a person of conscience.

[saracat]

16. Al and Tipper have a smug side.Remember the music censorship?

And Lieberman was the first Dem Senator to condemn Clinton and Al thought that Joe was insurance to keep him from being tarred with the "immoral" Clinton brush .Everyone knows that Gore didn't want Clinton campaigning for him and that was an enormous mistake! Gore paid a huge price for being a prig.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

20. Two canards for the price of one!

First canard: that there was "censorship" involved in Tipper's PMRC advocacy in the 80s. At the time, Frank Zappa was saying bad things about Tipper, so I was persuaded by his well-articulated position. He was wrong from an historical viewpoint: the PMRC position was that CONSUMER NOTICE was a reasonable part of marketing music to minors, so that parents could be informed about what their kids wanted to buy. Now I agree.

If a CD advocates misogyny, rape, killing people, etc., I would like to be advised of that, BEFORE I buy it for one of my kids. Ratings have been voluntarily used by the movie industry for decades. Now TV shows have consumer notices as well. On balance, I favor voluntary industry classifications in all three categories, on the principle of informed consumerism. (I would rather have less corporate consolidation of entertainment in general, but that's a separate issue.)

No censorship has occurred. Musicians of all stripes say what they want in contemporary music, probably more so than they did in the 80s. I was wrong. Tipper got what she wanted and she was right all along, IMO. (BTW, Al is prominently featured in a new Neil Young video: sorry Frank, I'm going with Neil.)

Second canard: Gore didn't use Clinton in his 2000 campaign. He did use him, but only in states and localities where he thought it was helpful. I have seen general polling data and exit polling data that indicated the Gore campaign was right. Sorry I don't have it at my finger tips.

Clinton was an asset in some places, but a liability, on balance, in many others. His personal negatives were higher then than they are now.

Gore, IMO, ran an excellent campaign. How else can you explain his ability to come from about 20 points down in March 1999, to the point where he actually won the election? I'm not saying it was perfect, just excellent in most respects.

Besides the only impeachment in American history, Gore had to deal with the most hostile press in modern history (maybe all American history). That campaign was surreal with respect to the double standard coverage. Constant spin and dissembling about Gore (see dailyhowler.com for details) must have cost him millions of votes, although it is hard to estimate how many, of course. But I have seen the exit polling for 2000 and statistically, the biggest Gore negative was a perception of dissembling, a lack of trustworthiness.

This perception was a PURE FABRICATION on the part of the national press corps. Gore was brilliant in the face of unprecedented media hostility (reporters actually booed Gore during the campaign, I am not making this up).

That press hostility was at least, in part, a Clinton residual, although it remains a mystery why so many jornalists hate(d) Gore. It was fashionable in that cycle and most reporters tend to act like sheep. Go figure.

Gore had to thread the needle to win the election, with many undeserved liabilities. He did so brilliantly. He is an undefeated heavyweight despite bad odds in 2000.

[rosesaylavee]

26. I agree.

Good synopsis. He won despite huge odds. If it weren't for the Supreme Court overstepping their constitutional bounds...

[karynnj]

31. The March 1999 polls were way too early

and they reflected that some Deocrats and Independents preferred someone else. I would be more impressed if it were a March 2000 poll. It did show that there was a Clinton fatique that Gore needed to deal with. However,

I think Gore was the first Presidential candidate to run with a biased media. Look how nonsense charges against Gore (like when he said a vet charged less for a specific medication for his dog than a doctor charged his mom - the price issue was correct but he was called a liar when he personalized it and didn't say "if") but the media ignored all the scandals of Bush's past. Not to mention they ALL characterized Bush as having a this sunny personality - when the descriptions from when his dad was President show a pretty nasty guy.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

49. Interesting point.

I don't know the March 2000 numbers (seen them before but can't easily locate), but I believe the race was closer by then.

However I believe the 1999 data is still important, in this sense. If Gore "should have won by a mile," as some suggest, Gore would have been way up (rather than way down) in March 1999. It is also interesting to note that polls right now are much closer than early 1999. The last poll I saw was Gore 47-McCain 47 (best of all Dems).

Thanks for the reminder about the dog story. I'd forgotten that one.

All that stuff about having a beer with Dubya would be more fun than with Gore-- I wonder how many reporters today would want those 2000 stories re-hashed. Gore '08 will be a nightmare for the press. And now with the rising power of the bloggers, the press will have a very tough time. This is the perfect chance for the Democratic Party to counterattack the corporate media and the double standard they have employed against Dems since 1992.

[Mabus]

51. I found January, Febuary and March 2000 polls

If Vice President Al Gore were the Democratic Party's candidate and Texas Gov. George W. Bush were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for -- Gore, the Democrat, or Bush, the Republican? (Question asked of likely voters.)


Bush Gore
Now (March 2000)
49% 43%

February (2000)
Bush Gore
52% 43%


January (2000)
Bush Gore
57% 38%

source: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/03/13/poll.cnn/index.html
There are more polls comparing Bush and Gore at the link.


edited to add some important stuff (too numerous to mention) since I suffer from pre-mature posting from time to time. :blush:

[Uncle Joe]

33. I believe many journalists hate(d) Al Gore

precisely because he empowered us when the championed the internet. For lack of a better word, it was their ox which was gored when the people were empowered to search out their own information. The mass corporate media wanted to remain the sole gatekeepers to the truth. It follows the Prometheus analogy, just insert internet for fire, Al Gore for Prometheus, the handful of owners and CEOs of the mass corporate media for Zeus, their puppet minions for vulture and liver eating for lies and slander and there you have it.

[cadmium]

34. Gore was undermined heavily by

"liberal" media--they do it with selective repitition of out of context quotes, headlines, insinuations among other indirect methods. Kerry was subject to the same image attacks from careerist liberal mainstream media.

In our recent Massachusetts gubatorial election the sniping of the newspapers and radio was not enough to overcome Deval Patricks grass-roots support. In the end the election wasn't close but in addition to Patricks intense grass-roots Dem Party efforts the wave of anti-Bush sentiment helped. The Globe (the liberal paper) was much less fair than the Herald (the conservative paper). The Herald direcly bashed both of them. Some people still think the mainstream media is liberal and this certainly has been effective for the Republicans over the years. Calling the media liberal is like calling Bush honest.

[Uncle Joe]

35. Regarding the mass corporate media's treatment of

Al Gore, it all seemed pretty direct to me, just lies and slander and I don't know of any living person trashed and slandered to such an extent over such a long period of time by our so called fourth estate guardian watchdogs for democracy or whatever the hell it is, they like to call them selves, beginning in March of 99 and running through the coup of 2000. They even overruled them selves and their focus groups overnight as to who won the debates. I imagine they knew then, it would take a sustained effort on all cylinders to undermine Al's credibility with the American People, making it easier to gloss over Bush's deficiencies, mistakes and lies thus keeping the race close enough to steal on a platform of bringing "honor and integrity" back to the White House. Had the race been about competence or the issues, instead of earth tones and who would you rather have a beer with, something the mass corporate media was loathe to do. I believe Al would have won in a land slide.

I believe 9/11 might have been avoided, no Iraq War, the federal government would have helped the Katrina victims as if it cared, no trashing of the Constitution, no raping of the environment and our global suicidal path to hell in a hand basket via global warming would have been altered as well. This is what the mass corporate media's lie among many others of "Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet" has brought us.

[cadmium]

37. And not just the lies --- it is the themes and

story placement. Let's say Al Gore was interviewed about the environment--the front page headline would have been "Why Gore Wears Brown". Even if the story was objective they would have achieved a little smear with the demeaning headline.

[saracat]

36. Not so.Warning labals are still a form of censorship and Clinton was NOT

used effectively.His ratings at the time of the election were high and could have only benefited Gore. Clinton himself publicly stated that he was not "allowed" to campaign. I spoke to Mike McCurry and Ed Rendell about this situation and they both said their hands had been tied.Gore ran a lousey campaign(though I think he won in spite of himself) and allowed himself to be buffeted to and fro by whatever handler was the flavor of the day. The press did not warm to Gore it is true, but he did have a wooden priggish personality.That was noted many times during his years as VP.I t wasn't new.


Just because Gore has recently emerged as a champion of the enviornment is no reason to hold him blameless for his own election or to rewrite history.I personally admire Gore buthe was by no means a perfect candidate. But then again who is?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

45. I looked up "censorship."

I'm pretty sure that consumer content labels on music DVDs are not censorship.

And there is no harm to creativity as far as I can tell. It seems that lyricists feel freer to today to promote any idea, including misogyny, etc., than in the '80s, wouldn't you agree?

His job approval ratings were high but his *personal* approval ratings were much lower. Gore's use of Clinton was certainly reasonable, and probably correct, in view of the exit polling data I have seen. I apologize for not digging it up, but it would take some time.

As to the "hands tied" comment: that happens all the time in a campaign. Someone with more authority makes the decision and cuts off dissenting opinions. It neither proves nor disproves the merit of the decision itself.

The idea that Gore ran a lousy campaign runs counter to history in my view. Anyone who has followed electoral history understands that being a two term incumbent VP is a big disadvantage. After eight years of Coke, the country wants Pepsi. Since 1836, only one two-term incumbent VP has won the presidency: Bush 41* That anomaly is easily explained by the self-admittedly bad Dukakis campaign.

I hope you will admit that by any fair legal standard, Gore won Florida in 2000. So you are criticizing a winner. One who won in spite of huge disadvantages:

1) Monica
2) outspent 2-1
3) two-term incumbent VP
4) the press

How can a candidate with such major disadvantages (reflected in the 1999 polling showing Gore way behind Bush) run a lousy campaign and win? I am truly baffled by that.

[frogcycle]

48. warning labels are NOT a "form of censorship"

get real. telling you the contents of what you are buying is informative, not censorship
censorship would be banning them from the airwaves, or refusing to let them be sold (in some cases not all that bad a suggestion, but thats another discussion)

[AtomicKitten]

22. Al has evolved.

I hope he gives it another go in 2008.

[rman]

23. That was, how long ago?

[Schema Thing]

24. It bothers me too

When Lieberman was running in 2004, watching him in the debates etc, I thought "this insults my intelligence" (that he, or anyone, would think that someone like this a) could win, and b) would be a good thing if he won). Then I remembered that he was Gore's running mate (I was apolitical at the time, and so had no passion for it back then).

I do notice that in general, instead of running with someone of their own stature, candidates tend to choose someone who is in some way a notch "less" (or in some cases several notches).

[Toots]

25. Gore is in no way perfect, he is a politician

Politicians use politics and live politics. It was politically wise to have a Conservative Democrat on the ticket at that stage of America's life. Remember a Democratic President had just been Impeached and that was strong in everyone's memory. Remember how the rumors were flying about Kerry asking McCain to be his running mate? IMO opinion it was certainly not one of Gore's best moves but hopefully he has grown since then. He has more of an agenda now. Then he just wanted to be President, now he wants to save the world. He will do better I am positive.

[OnionPatch]

27. I agree that was a bad decision, but

the political climate was very different then. His choosing Lieberman was a strategic attempt to appeal to the moderates (in a more right-leaning political climate than we are seeing now) and I'm not so sure it was all his to make.

I've followed Gore since 2000 and have been so amazed and impressed with his speeches and the things he's done that I'm willing to give him another chance regardless of the Lieberman choice. It seems to me that once he tossed away his 2000 advisors, he was free to be himself and happily, that turned out to be someone many of us can highly respect and admire. Al Gore has been one of the few who dared to speak the truth and stand up for what's right these last 6-7 years and I think he'd be a damn fine president. I doubt he'll pick another Lieberman if he runs again but I guess one never can know when it comes to politics.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jcrew2001]

32. liebs sucks

I think that Gore should have stuck to the 'southern strategy' that clinton had. He could have gone with Edwards, or Kerry (who was a vet, but also had bachelor issues), i'm surprised he didn't give Bayh a closer look for winning indiana. Bayh didn't get the VP in 2004 because he was running for re-election.

Lieberman just doesn't represent most americans - i think he's a bit pompous and self-righteous and arrogant and condescending.

[RestoreGore]

39. this is why he has fallen out of love with politics...

because of the political game playing involved in running instead of the heart and soul, and I can't blame him one bit. And since he is not a candidate now but a private citizen, I don't understand why so many still talk of him as if he were. But this is also a clear example to me of why he claimed he didn't run in 2004... because it would be about the past, and it would be no different now from what I can see.

Here the man has stood up for the planet while others are still ignoring the catastrophe unfolding right before our eyes, and all people can talk about is his picking Joe Lieberman, running in this shitty system again to dredge it all up, or some other political speculation. No wonder we are in danger of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets falling into the ocean and no wonder he has fallen out of love with politics. If people talked about taking action on this climate crisis as much as they do things like this we might actually beat that window closing...maybe.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. I don't exactly have a problem with Al Gore, but he's not a contender for President.

He's repeatedly said he's not interested in running. I don't support conscription or forced labour, in politics or any other field of life.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

54. But he is draftable. He might even run on his own initiative.

It's true he's said countless times he has no intention of running, but it is also true that he has not changed the status quo since December 2002 on 60 Minutes (announcing that he would not run in 2004), when he stated emphatically that he would NOT rule out a 2008 run.

He has also said more than once, that as a "recovering politician," there is always a danger of "relapse," a rather flirtacious remark made in front of a MoveOn crowd (his base) in at least one of those cases.

Also, there are many below-the-radar indications of his interest, not including the many leaks reputedly coming from Gore insiders as to his optimism about running (those leaks starting shortly after the 2004 election). One example would be his friend, Dylan Malone, who is the Chair of AlGore.org a grassroots organization seeking to draft him (disclaimer: I'm a member). Another would be Dr. Elaine Kamarck, currently at the Kennedy School of Government (Harvard) and Gore advisor in 2000. Last month she gave a talk to the Cambridge Draft Gore Meetup entitled "How to Draft Gore in 2008." She remains close to the Gores as far as I know, so it would be weird for her to do that if he wasn't amenable. Another is Roy Neel (Al's Chief of Staff throughout Congress and the White House). On a local public radio show in Nashville in 2005, he opined that Gore would run in 2008 with strong grassroots support. Gore has since re-hired him to work on the Climate Crisis project. That would be VERY weird if Gore wasn't considering a run.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

58. Let me put it this way.

If Al Gore comes out and says in as many words "I have decided to run for President" then I will think seriously about supporting him. Unless he does that, I won't, and I think it unlikely although not impossible that he will do so.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

73. This Cilizza piece is noteworthy.

Gore himself (and his advisers to Cilizza) pointedly refuse to close the door. See link at bottom.

I don't think your position is unreasonable, I simply think mine is closer to the public record, especially including under-the-radar events such as the Kamarck speech.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010502379.html

[RestoreGore]

And once again it is all speculation not based on fact...

HE hasn't said those words and gives no indication of anything you speculate about. When and if HE says it, that changes everything. Until then if it even happens at all he is not a candidate. However, he is a statesman and environmental advocate doing a great thing now that none of these socalled "draft" groups seem to think is great since you all don't seem to believe him to be worthy of support unless he runs for office. Don't then wonder why some people may also be turned off to your efforts to harass this man the more he claims he is not intending to do anything in that vein and that his campaign is about this climate crisis, which from what I also see not many of you truly take seriously in its own context unless you can use it for your political agenda.

And are you actually intimating that the reason he hired Roy Neel to his climate project was because he really has political ambitions and is only using this climate crisis as a cover? Again, insulting to his character. I also heard Roy Neel speak to Gwen Ifill on PBS and he gave exactly the opposite impression you gave. So perhaps those of you who live, eat, sleep, and breathe speculation should come back when you actually have some facts to impart on us.

Al Gore himself on Larry King stated that he has no intentions of running and that drafts do not happen. I agree with him and believe him because I live in the reality based world and see this system for what it really us. And I will not be a party this time to falsely upping peoples' hopes just to see them dashed. When Al Gore himself announces anything should he, then it is to be believed. Otherwise to me it is just a waste of time that could be better used to help him and this planet now.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

64. Thanks for the reply.

I think I'm through with this thread due to time constraints. In closing, I reviewed my post above and each statement is about a fact. If you disagree, I invite the readers to review my preceding post and see if each point is based on a fact. For example, Gore has said everything I said & Kamarck & Neel also did make those statements.

We just disagree and perhaps we can both better spend our time needlessly repeating from here. Hope to see you around the forum and good luck with what you are trying to accomplish.

[RestoreGore]

61. And once again it is all speculation not based on fact...

HE hasn't said those words and gives no indication of anything you speculate about. When and if HE says it, that changes everything. Until then if it even happens at all he is not a candidate. However, he is a statesman and environmental advocate doing a great thing now that none of these socalled "draft" groups seem to think is great since you all don't seem to believe him to be worthy of support unless she runs for office. Don't then wonder why some people may also be turned off to your efforts to harass this man the more he claims he is not intending to do anything in that vein and that his campaign is about this climate crisis, which from what I also see not many of you truly take seriously in its own context unless you can use it for your political agenda.

And are you actually intimating that the reason he hired Roy Neel to his climate project was because he really has political ambitions and is only using this climate crisis as a cover? Again, insulting to his character. I also heard Roy Neel speak to Gwen Ifill on PBS and he gave exactly the opposite impression you gave. So perhaps those of you who live, eat, sleep, and breathe speculation should come back when you actually have some facts to impart on us.

Al Gore himself on Larry King stated that he has no intentions of running and that drafts do not happen. I agree with him and believe him because I live in the reality based world and see this system for what it really us. And I will not be a party this time to falsely upping peoples' hopes just to see them dashed. When Al Gore himself announces anything should he, then it is to be believed. Otherwise to me it is just a waste of time that could be better used to help him and this planet now.

[RestoreGore]

62. And once again it is all speculation not based on fact...

HE hasn't said those words and gives no indication of anything you speculate about. When and if HE says it, that changes everything. Until then if it even happens at all he is not a candidate. However, he is a statesman and environmental advocate doing a great thing now that none of these socalled "draft" groups seem to think is great since you all don't seem to believe him to be worthy of support unless she runs for office. Don't then wonder why some people may also be turned off to your efforts to harass this man the more he claims he is not intending to do anything in that vein and that his campaign is about this climate crisis, which from what I also see not many of you truly take seriously in its own context unless you can use it for your political agenda.

And are you actually intimating that the reason he hired Roy Neel to his climate project was because he really has political ambitions and is only using this climate crisis as a cover? Again, insulting to his character. I also heard Roy Neel speak to Gwen Ifill on PBS and he gave exactly the opposite impression you gave. So perhaps those of you who live, eat, sleep, and breathe speculation should come back when you actually have some facts to impart on us.

Al Gore himself on Larry King stated that he has no intentions of running and that drafts do not happen. I agree with him and believe him because I live in the reality based world and see this system for what it really us. And I will not be a party this time to falsely upping peoples' hopes just to see them dashed. When Al Gore himself announces anything should he, then it is to be believed. Otherwise to me it is just a waste of time that could be better used to help him and this planet now.

[RestoreGore]

63. sorry for the multiple postings

must have been a hiccup.

[zulchzulu]

43. Choosing Lieberman was a calculation that Gore regrets, I'm guessing

At that time, Gore wanted to get "Holy Joe" in there to offset what he felt was Clinton Fatigue, where he and/or his staff bit the bait that Clinton only stood for being a liar who cheated on his wife IN the White House.

Choosing Lieberman was supposed to relieve all those voters who'd thunk he wuz jus' as bad if didn't choose someone who could somehow bring "morality" back into the White House, even if he wuz on of dem Jews...

I'm befuddled by his choice, but then again, I still have a Bill Bradley 2000 magnet on my fridge.

Two actually...

[MonkeyFunk]

50. Choosing a VP

is almost entirely political, not policy-driven.

It was thought that Lieberman could help win Florida, and help swing "values voters". He didn't do much for either, so it was, in retrospect, a mistake.

Similarly, John Edwards, for all his good qualities, was a bad choice, too. He didn't even bring in his home state, or any other Southern state.

[jcrew2001]

52. General Clark as VP

I think Clark would make an impact as a VP candidate because people will notice the General part and it will strengthen the ticket.

A VP selection is only for political/PR purposes. Its goal is to strengthen the Presidential candidate. Lieberman could have made Gore look more "moral" but all those people who cared, which were the christian conservatives voted for Bush so it didn't matter.

Gore should have chosen Bayh/Edwards to get the independent/moderate Southern voters, so he could win Tenn or NH. The morality issue did not affect true democrats or swing voters.

Edwards and Lieberman were poor choices because they were senators matched with a Senator/VP, Washington people, so their base was not strong. Edwards would not have had the impact of a governor, who could have won a state, or a general which had the gravitas to win the moderate swing voters.

Senators don't have much influence outside of their home state. Governors get more exposure regionally, I live in Mass and i don't hear much about Hillary. I think its that Washington vacuum.

[Samantha]

55. Lieberman was supposed to deliver Florida

Gore definitely needed Florida in order to win. He's an excellent political strategist, and that's why, under the then-political climate, he needed Lieberman.

It's always amusing when people complain here about Gore's relationship with Lieberman. Lieberman and Bill Clinton have always been close, but not Gore and Lieberman.

[Smarmie Doofus]

59. More importantly, *Hillary* and Lieberman. nt

>>>It's always amusing when people complain here about Gore's relationship with Lieberman. Lieberman and Bill Clinton have always been close, but not Gore and Lieberman.>>>>

[SOS]

76. If Gore's strategy was to win Florida

he should have picked Florida Senator and 2004 presidential candidate Bob Graham.

[Samantha]

85. We listened to that debate at that time

and obviously Gore thought Lieberman was the stronger candidate of the two. He's a pretty good political strategist, so I do not presume to criticize any decisions he made at that time. Considering the political climate against the Dems which existed then, and the fact that Gore started down the road 20 points behind Bush, ended up winning the popular vote, my opinion is that he did a stellar job in planning the strategy of his campaign.

Besides campaigning for the Jewish vote, Gore sought to offset the stain, pardon that word, of scandal which had besieged the Dems during the impeachment debacle. I certainly am no fan of Lieberman's, but he was considered to be the epitome of decency among the potential vice-presidential possibilities. He had been among the first to speak out against Bill Clinton's
"moments of weakness" in the Oval Office (despite the fact Clinton had been considered a protege of Lieberman's since entering the Washington scene and developed a close friendship with the man)and the thought was the voting public would see this as condemnation of the immoral acts committed by Clinton. I think the strategy worked to a certain extent.

[BoneDaddy]

56. Gimme a break

if you know a fucking smattering about politics it is that sometimes your bedfellows are not the most attractive. If you took a single second to recognize that coming out of the Clinton era, the Dems backs were against the wall and that Gore needed a more mainstream or center/right (of course now our view is 20/20 in hindsight that Joe L was more right than center) candidate. It was a wise move at that time.. Now we see Lieberman as the asshole that he is, but to say we should have seen that back than is really really irrational and ignorant.

[Apollo11]

60. Gore believes in diversity

There are two major reasons why Gore picked Lieberman in 2000.

1. As was already mentioned by several people, Gore had to find a way to distance himself from Clinton on the Monica issue. Bush was running on a promise of restoring integrity to the Whitehouse. Rove was using the fact that most voters were not real happy with Clinton's behavior as regards the abuse of his power over a vulnerable star-struck intern.

Joe Lieberman was one of the first Democrats in the Senate to publicly condemn Clinton's wrong behavior. As Clinton's VP, Gore could not publicly condemn his boss. But by picking Joe as his running mate, Gore could send out a very clear signal that he did not agree with Clinton's behavior and subsequent misleading and untruthful public statements.

2. Gore believes strongly in diversity and inclusiveness - not just in theory but also in practice. Therefore he would look positively at potential running mates who are women and/or minorities. Jewish people are a minority group in America, and I think it's true that Joe Lieberman was the first Jewish person to run on the national ticket for a national party.


Gore has not ruled out being a candidate again. There is no reason why he should not enter the race for 2008 sometime this fall. A lot depends on the reaction to his forthcoming book "The Assault on Reason" (coming in May)

In Gore We Trust :)
www.algore.com
www.algore.org
www.draftgore.com
www.draftgore2008.org
www.patriotsforgore.com

[Mikey929]

65. Just one?

He's boring, wooden, and dry. And he's a partisan idealogue for the global warming crowd. Let's look at Al's personal life in terms of his modifications to save the planet, i.e., the size of his house(s); his use of A/C; does he use SUV's; travel by private jet, etc. So add hypocrite to the list. I would also bet he has millions of dollars invested with the very companies whom he alleges are destroying the planet.

[NYCGirl]

66. You are SO VERY WRONG. First of all, did you know Al Gore is co-founder of

an investment firm that invests only in green concerns? Of course you didn't.

http://www.generationim.com/

Generation is an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 and with offices in London and Washington, D.C.

We invest in long-only, global, public equities with a concentrated portfolio of 30-50 companies. We aim to buy high quality companies at attractive prices that will deliver superior long-term investment returns. Sustainability research plays an important role in forming our views on the quality of the business, the quality of management and valuation.

Our performance fees align our interests with that of our clients by being based on long term performance.

And that his home, his film and book and even Current TV are carbon-neutral?

Read this and educate yourself:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/8/17/133652/848

[Mikey929]

67. agree?

So by your silence, I take it you agree that he is dry, wooden, and boring. Thanks. Always nice to have confirmation of my beliefs!

Seriously, Gore was a lousy candidate. Never sure of himself and dry as dust. Now that he has discovered passion, it is for one topic and one topic only. So when the New Al gets out there, he'll be wearing his "concerned environmentalist" outfit and trying to scare the bejesus out of John and Jane Doe. It won't work. He's going to look like an extremist who wants to shut down businesses to serve the greater good of Goddess Earth. His message will not resonate with middle America.

And lastly, yes he is a very rich man who can afford to make the necessary modifications to conform his home to the current green trend. What is the average guy supposed to do earning $40K per year and living in rancher in the suburbs? Are we all supposed to stop driving and install windmills in our front yard?

[NYCGirl]

69. No, I don't agree, but "dry, wooden and boring" is YOUR OPINION. Personally,

I think he's fascinating and sexy.

Discovered passion? Did you ever read "Earth in the Balance"? He wrote that in 1992 and was studying climate change back in college.

One topic? Have you seen or read any of his speeches since 2000? There's some about Iraq, about the rule of law, about the laziness of the media. I guess not.

Shut down businesses? How about new technologies CREATING new business and loads of new jobs?

"An Inconvenient Truth" is the third highest grossing documentary of all time — it seems that some of "middle America" has seen it. BTW, the DVD is selling incredibly well, too.

Average guy wants to know how to go green? Again, educate yourself:

http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/whatyoucando/
http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/carboncalculator/
http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/becomeactive/

[rman]

68. That's only so much regurgitated RW propaganda,

and old to.

[Mikey929]

71. RW?

Well he did lose in 2000 coming off a strong 8 years with a Dem pres and a good economy. And he did lose his home-state. So there had to be something a little wrong about him.

And I do believe that he has now committed himself to be a one-issue candidacy. Sorry, that's the way it I see it. As for the previous poster's comment that he is sexy, well isn't that special? I guess we should just leave it to People Magazine to conduct a poll on the sexiest candidate and then we can elect that person.

I think Gore is consumed with "what could have been" and is eager to run again. And I think he will have his Dean "scream" moment when he seems just a tad off his nut.

[NYCGirl]

72. You're the one regurgitating right wing talking points and you're making fun

of what I said?

:rofl:

BTW, Gore won the popular vote by half a million. Perhaps you didn't remember that, either.

[Mikey929]

74. I do remember

Yes he did win the popular vote. And your point is? There's a little something called the electoral college. Minor point, but you may want to look into it.

And from your tone, I guess your logic dictates that any time someone disagrees with you, it is automatically RW talking points. Must be a nice way to deflect criticism and remain secure in the sanctity of your own beliefs.

Al Gore lost. Sorry, that's the way it is. He was not that good a candidate.

[NYCGirl]

75. No, they're right wing talking points when they're spread by folks like Glenn Beck,

and when they're LIES. Sounds like all the stuff you said above.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/8/17/133652/848

About a week ago, USA Today published a piece by Peter Schweitzer, who's a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. It accused Al Gore of hypocrisy, for asking viewers of An Inconvenient Truth to scale back their lifestyles and carbon emissions while ... well, there were a number of charges. According to Schweitzer, Gore owns three homes and stock in Occidental Petroleum, still receives royalties from a zinc mine on his property, does not participate in the green-power option his utility offers in Nashville, and lets Paramount pay for his carbon offsets.

As per standard practice, the conservative media machine spread the charges far and wide -- most recently they popped up on Glenn Beck's show on CNN and, bizarrely, in a recurring poll on AOL's homepage.

[Mikey929]

77. Intentions

I disagree with the blogger's statement that someone who preaches societal change but does not change on a personal level is better than the person who does not advocate change. I could not disagree more. Barbara Streisand encapsulated this more than any recent example I can think of. Preaching about all the ways we are killing the planet, and yet there were the helicopter shots of her massive mansion. Her private jet. Her cars. And then she sued to prevent those pictures from becoming public. Such hypocrisy! Such a tenor of "Do as I say you little people. But I am exempt because I am rich and powerful."

I think Al Gore means well. I really do. I believe that he believes in what he does 100%. But I still think he is a lousy presidential candidate. And I find him to be dull and boring in his speeches. So sue me, I don't happen to like the man you've chosen to idolize.

[NYCGirl]

78. What the fuck does Barbra Streisand have to do with this? Is she running for

anything?

[Mikey929]

80. Babs

Is Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson?

[NYCGirl]

81. What do those people have to do with anything on this thread?

You're now veering off into irrelevance.

[Mikey929]

82. Yup

Just like Al Gore is.

The man cannot accept that he lost the election. But his time has passed. It is time to let it go. You can of course keep your own private shrine to the man if you like.

[NYCGirl]

83. You just keep quoting Glenn Beck — I'm sure that'll take you really far. NT

[Mikey929]

84. Glen

I've never seen Glen Beck talk about Al Gore.

[More Than A Feeling]

70. When Feingold was in the running,

my argument for him over Gore was that Feingold had taken bold stands equal to those of Gore, but did it while being responsible to his constituents, whereas Gore was responsible to no one (here I am not referring to Global Warming, but to Gore's speeches on civil liberties and the Iraq War). Now that Feingold is out, that argument does not carry the weight it used it.

Nonetheless, Gore is not my candidate, as I do not think he will run. I have no candidate right now.

[AZBlue]

79. People change over time, and they've gone in different directions.

I like Gore even more than I did then and Lieberman even less.